1. Fall of Napoleon:
After the surrender of Napoleon III at Sedan in September 1870, the condition of France was deplorable.
A republican government was set up in Paris and it was declared to fight the Germans.
The cry was raised: “We will not yield an inch of French soil nor a stone of French fortresses ” Metz with the army of Bazaine was still unconquered and the French felt that they could still defend Paris While the Prussian armies marched towards the French capital, Thiers went on a tour of the capitals of Europe with a view to secure foreign help against Prussia.
Image Source: upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/99/Franz_Xaver_Winterhalter_Napoleon_III.jpg
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Paris was besieged by the Prussian troops and Gambetta went out of Paris in a balloon to arouse the countryside and thereby secure help for the Parisians against the Prussians. The result was that volunteers from all over France marched towards Pans to rescue the Parisians. Volunteers came also from abroad, including such persons as Garibaldi, his sons and Kitchener.
However, in spite of all the enthusiasm and the resistance, Metz fell and Bazaine also surrendered. After a siege of 4 months and the bombardment of four weeks, Paris also surrendered. Thiers tried to secure lenient terms from Bismarck and he left no stone unturned to achieve his objective. Regarding the interview between Thiers and Bismarck, Jules Favre wrote thus. “I still see him pale and agitated- now sitting, now springing to his feet; I hear his voice broken by grief, his words cut short, and his tones suppliant and proud.
I know nothing grander than the sublime passion of this noble heart bursting out in petitions, menaces, prayers, now caressing, now terrible, growing by degrees more angry in the face of the cruel refusal.” Bismarck was in an uncompromising mood and addressed thus to Thiers- “We have no guarantees of permanence either from you or from any government that may come after you”.
The reply of Thiers was in these words. “Well, let it be as you will, these negotiations are a pretence. We appear to deliberate, we have only to pass under your yoke. We ask for a city absolutely French, you refuse it to us; it is to avow that you have resolved to wage against us a war of extremity. Do It. Ravish our provinces, bum our homes, cut the throats of our unoffending inhabitants —in a word, complete your work. We will fight to the last breath; we shall succumb at last, but we will not be dishonoured.”
ADVERTISEMENTS:
The preliminaries of peace were signed at Versailles in February 1871 and were confirmed by the treaty of Frankfurt of May 1871. France had to surrender Alsace Lorraine including Metz and Strassburg but excluding Belfort. She also agreed to pay a war indemnity of £200,000,000 within three years and during that interval, a German army of occupation was to remain on the French soil and was to be supported by France.
2. The Paris Commune (1871):
Although the war with Germany was ended, France was not destined to have peace and she had to face immediately a crisis at home. The trouble arose in the form of the revolt of the Paris Commune which is considered to be a great epoch in the history of socialism. It was an attempt to put into actual practices the ideas and ideals of Karl Marx with the help of military force.
It is to be observed that although a Republic was proclaimed in Paris, the same was not sanctioned by the country at large. A National Assembly was elected to ratify the terms of the Treaty with Germany and it chose Thiers as “Chief of the Executive” for the transitional period.
The National Assembly was controlled by the Monarchists and there was a danger of the overthrow of the Republic and the restoration of monarchy. Paris which was republican in spirit and had returned republican candidates even in the time of Napoleon III was not prepared to allow the Republic to be overthrown. Certain acts of the National Assembly added to the distrust.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
The National Assembly decided to shift the capital of France from Bordeaux to Versailles and not to Paris. This was insulting to the people of Paris who had suffered terribly at the hands of the Prussians to save the honour of the country.
The prosperity of Paris was likely to be affected by the shifting of the capital to Versailles. No wonder, this move was resented by the property-owners, merchants and workmen. During the period of the siege of Paris, the payment of rents, debts and notes had been suspended by a decree of the government. There was a general demand to continue the suspension order as the economic condition of the people after the ending of the siege was miserable. They were not in a position to pay at once.
There was a lot of unemployment. Unfortunately, the National Assembly refused to continue the suspension order and ordered the payment of all such debts to be made within 48 hours. As the people could not pay, more than 1½ lakhs of Parisians were exposed to legal prosecutions. This involved a lot of hardship to the business world.
A majority of the workmen were without employment and their only source of income was their remuneration as members of the National Guard. The National Assembly suppressed the National Guard except in the case of those who secured certificates of poverty.
The National Guard included most of the able-bodied male population of Paris. It had defended Paris during the siege and the arms were left in the hands of the members after the conclusion of war.As soon as the siege was raised, the rich and well-to-do members of the National Guard left Paris in large numbers to rejoin their families.
It is only the poor who continued to be the members of the National Guard and the National Assembly deprived them of their franc and a half a day. These people were armed, suspicious, discontented and wretched. They were inflamed by the rumours that the Republic was in danger.
Paris was also full of Anarchists, Jacobins and Socialists. The Socialist had a large following among the working classes. Among the restless, discontented and poverty-stricken masses of Paris, the Socialist leaders worked with great success. There arose out of the confusion of the time the idea of the Commune. It was proposed that in the future political set-up of the country; more emphasis should be put on the Communes.
While they should be given more powers, the sphere of the State should be circumscribed. In other words it was a demand to decentralise the administration in a country which was completely centralised. It was felt that if the suggestion was accepted, many French cities or Communes which had republican sympathies would be liberated from the control of the central government which was monarchist in spirit. There was every possibility of bringing about an economic and social revolution in the Communes.
The discontentment in Paris expressed itself through the National Guard which selected in February 1871 a committee of 60 members to regulate its activity. With a view to prevent any action being taken against Paris and the Republic by the National Assembly, the National Guard removed some cannon to one of the strongest points in the city of Paris.
The National Assembly was not prepared to tolerate that and consequently tried to recapture the same on 18 March 1871. However, it failed in its objective. The authority of the government was defined by the members of the National Guard and the people at large. The spirit of revolt spread all over the city and it developed into a war between Paris on the one side and the National Assembly at Versailles on the other.
Two of the generals of the Versailles government were captured and shot by the rebels. The government forces were withdrawn from Paris by Thiers and the city was left entirely in the hands of the rebels who secured complete control over the same.
On 26 March 1871, elections were held in Paris for the General Council of 90 members to serve as the government of the Commune. Ministers in charge of various departments were appointed. Republican calendar of the revolution and the red flag of the Socialists were adopted. All the Socialists did not subscribe to one ideology and many of them differed from one another. Paris denied the charge that it was trying to disrupt the unity of the country.
It was maintained that it was merely trying to abolish the kind of unity “imposed on us up to this day by the Empire, the Monarchy and Parliamentarism,” which was “despotic, unintelligent, arbitrary and onerous centralisation.” The Paris Commune intended to abolish the old system of “militarism, exploitation, stock jobbing, monopolies and privileges to which the proletariat owes its servitude, and the fatherland, its misfortunes and its disasters.” An appeal was made to the people of France to help them in their cause. “Let her be our ally in this conflict which can only end by the triumph of the communal idea or the ruin of Paris?”
The Paris Commune could succeed only if it was able to overthrow the Versailles government. Troops were sent out from Paris to break up the National Assembly. They were unsuccessful in their attempt, and were captured and shot. In revenge, the Paris Commune ordered the arrest of many prominent men in Paris who were ordered to be kept as “hostages”.
Men like Thiers were very unhappy at the prospect of a civil war in the country. It was humiliating to find Frenchmen fighting against Frenchmen, particularly before the eyes of the German soldiers who were still on the French soil. Thiers tried to remove the suspicion that any attempt was being made to destroy the Republic. A law was passed on 14 April 1871 by which the powers of the local bodies were enlarged.
However, he made it clear that he was not prepared to weaken the authority of the government and the unity of the country and was also determined to crush the rebels of Paris. For a time, the work of Thiers was a difficult one. However, after some time, an army of 1 ½ lakhs of men was prepared to deal with the Paris Commune. A regular siege of Paris was started.
There was a lot of bitterness and ferocity on both sides. The siege lasted from 2 April to 21 May 1871. After that, there was fighting in the streets of Paris for a week which is termed as “the bloody week.”
During these seven days, Paris suffered much more than she had suffered from the bombardment of the Germans for a week. There was wholesale burning and slaughter. According to Henotaux, “Everything was burning; there were explosions everywhere.
A night of terror; the Porte Saint Martin, the Church of Saint Eustacha, the Rue Royale, the Rue de Rivole, the Tuileries, the Palais-Royal, the Hotel de Ville, the left bank from the Legion de Honneur to the Palais de Justice, and the police office were immense red braziers, and above all rose lofty blazing columns….from outside, all the forts were firing upon Paris….The gunners were cannonading one another across the town, and above the town. Shells fell in every direction. All the central quarters were a battlefield. It was a horrible chaos bodies and souls in collision over a crumbling world.” The Paris Commune shot its hostages. However, on 28 May 1871, the last of the rebels were shot down.
After the victory, the Versailles government had its revenge on the rebels. The latter were punished right and left. Many of them were shot on the spot. According to Hanotaux, “The number of men who perished in this horrible fray, without any other form of law, is estimated at 17,000. The cemeteries, the squares, private or public gardens saw trenches opened in which nameless corpses were deposited without register and without list, by thousands.” Arrests and trials continued for years.
Up to 1875, more than 43,000 persons were arrested and a large number were denounced. The prisoners were tried by courts-martial and given severe punishments. It was as late as 1879 that an amnesty was given as a result of the efforts of Gambetta. A lot of class-hatred was created in the country. Regarding the Paris Commune, Prof Fyffe remarks. “When, after a siege of six weeks in which Paris suffered far more severely than it had suffered from the cannonade of the Germans, the troops of Versailles at length made their way into the capital, humanity and civilization seemed to have vanished in the orgies of devils. The defenders, as they fell back, murdered their hostages, and left behind them palaces, museums, the entire public inheritance of the nation in its capital, in flames. The conquerors during several days shot down all whom they took fighting, and in many cases put to death whole bands of prisoners without distinction. The temper of the army was such that the government, even if it had desired, could probably not have mitigated the terrors of this vengeance. But there was little sign anywhere of an inclination to mercy Courts-martial and executions continued long after the heat of combat was over. A year passed, and the tribunals were still busy with their work. Above ten thousand persons were sentenced to transportation or imprisonment before public justice was satisfied.”
3. Work of National Assembly (1871-75):
The National Assembly which was elected in the beginning of 1871 to ratify the treaty of Germany continued to sit up to 31 December 1875. It not only ratified the Treaty of Frankfurt but also crushed the revolt of the Paris Commune. Having accomplished that, the National Assembly addressed itself to the work of national reconstruction.
The problem of paying the war-indemnity was a very urgent one and consequently Thiers raised a large loan and thereby paid off the whole of war-indemnity in two years. The result was that the German troops were withdrawn from the French soil and Thiers came to be called “the Liberator of the Territory.” The French army was reorganised on the model of the Prussian army. A law of 1872 provided for compulsory military service throughout the length and breadth of the country.
The National Assembly had to address itself to the task of framing a constitution for the country. Thiers was originally a believer in constitutional monarchy but he was not afraid of a republican government as well. With the passage of time, he came to believe that a Republic was the only possible form of government for his country. To quote him, “There is only one throne and there are the claimants for seat on it.” “Those parties who want a monarchy do not want the same monarchy.” As regards the republican form of government, “it is the form of government which divides us least!”
This fact is made clear if we refer to the various sections which advocated the cause of monarchy in France. Those sections were the Legitimists, the Orleanists and the Bonapartists. The Legitimists supported the cause of the Count of Chambord, the grandson of Charles X. The Orleanists supported the cause of the Count of Paris. The Bonapartists advocated the cause of Napoleon III or his son. Although the Monarchists had a majority in the National Assembly, they were not able to have their own way to set up a monarchy in the country on account of the differences among them. In 1873, Thiers was made to resign as he was showing a tendency towards republicanism.
Many efforts were made to write a monarchical constitution for France. The Count of Chambord had no children and it was decided that the Count of Paris should give up his claims in favour of the Count of Chambord who should succeed as Henry V of France. As the Count of Chambord had no children, Count of Paris was to succeed him. The compromise having been secured it seemed certain that monarchy would be restored in France and negotiations started for that purpose. Negotiations were successful on all points except on the question of the flag.
The Count of Chambord openly declared that he was not prepared to accept the Tri-colour flag of the revolution. To quote him, “Henry V could never abandon the white flag of Henry IV.” His contention was that if he was to be the king of France, he must not sacrifice his principles and the flag. He was not prepared to be the king of the revolution. The negotiations failed on account of the stubbornness of the Count of Chambord.
In spite of this defeat, the Monarchists did not lose heart. Their view was that either the Count of Chambord would change his mind or he would die and be succeeded by the Count of Paris who was willing to accept the Tri-colour flag of the revolution. Under the circumstances, the Monarchists started playing delaying tactics. Their object was to gain time so that they may be able to attack when the iron was hot. After the resignation of Thiers, Macmahon was made the President. The term of his office had not been fixed so far and the same was fixed for 7 years in 1873. The Monarchists hoped that within the next 7 years they would be able to carry their point.
As the National Assembly was following a policy of delay, it did not seriously address itself to the task of framing the constitution. In this way, months and years passed. However, during this period, Gambetta was carrying on a vigorous campaign in favour of republicanism in every nook and comer of the country. To meet the danger of republicanism, the National Assembly passed a law in 1875 by which the mayors of all the Communes in France were to be appointed directly or indirectly by the ministry and not by the local Council as before.
This was intended to give the ministry control over the local affairs. Busts representing the Republic were removed from all public buildings. The name of Republic was omitted from all public documents. Republican newspapers were prosecuted and harassed. It is estimated that in one year, more than 200 Republican newspapers were suppressed. Instead of being disheartened, the Republicans continued their propaganda with more and more vigour.
At that stage, the Bonapartists became aggressive in the country and won a number of elections. The danger of a Bonapartist restoration changed completely the political situation in the country. A number of Orleanist members of the National Assembly were prepared to prefer Republicanism to Bonapartism. As their own chances were slender, they joined hands with the Republicans in the National Assembly. It was the combination of the Republicans and the Orleanists that enabled the National Assembly to frame a Republican constitution in France and the same was done in 1875. The Republican constitution was adopted by a majority of only one vote (353 to 352).
4. The French Constitution of 1875:
The Constitution of 1875 used the word Republic only once. It provided for a President to be elected for 7 years. Provision was made for a Senate and a Chamber of Deputies. The Republicans were in favour of direct elections to the Senate, but as a result of a compromise, provision was made for indirect elections through an electoral college. The Chamber of Deputies could be dissolved by the President with the consent of the Senate. France was to have a parliamentary form of government. The ministers were to be jointly and severally responsible for the general policy of the government and individually for their personal acts.
The constitution of 1875 was a compromise between the opposing forces. The Monarchists in the National Assembly felt that they had introduced sufficient monarchical elements in the constitution to curb the aggressiveness of democracy and to facilitate the restoration of monarchy at some convenient time. The Republican accepted the constitution as there was no other alternative to it. Some radical Republicans condemned the constitution as a mockery. It was described as “a dose prepared for a convalescent country.”
5. Dangers to Third Republic:
Although a monarchist National Assembly was forced to write a Republican constitution on account of the curious circumstances, the Third Republic in France had to meet many dangers. It took many years before it could be said to be placed on a stable footing.
(1) Under the Constitution of 1875, elections were held in 1876′ The Monarchists got a small majority in the Senate and the Republicans got a large majority in the Chamber of Deputies. President Macmahon appointed a Republican ministry but insisted that the departments of war, navy and foreign affairs were not under the control of the legislature.
The Monarchists started a vigorous agitation against the Republicans and they were supported by the clergymen of France. The Republicans resented the interference of the clergymen in the politics of the country and Gambetta condemned that action in these words. “Clericalism—that is our enemy.” The Roman Catholic Church came to be considered as the most dangerous enemy of the Republic. The enemies of the Republic persuaded Macmahon to believe that he was not found to follow the advice of the ministry and he could have a policy of his own.
On 16 May 1877, Macmahon dismissed the Republican ministry which enjoyed the confidence of the Chamber of Deputies and appointed a new ministry which was largely composed of the Monarchists under the Duke of Broglie.
The Senate agreed in the dissolution of the Chamber of Deputies and fresh elections were ordered. The Republicans were determined to oppose the moves of Macmahon. It was contended by them that the President had no right to have a policy of his own.
He could not dismiss a ministry which enjoyed the confidence of the legislature. Macmahon’s contention was that he had that right and “if the Chamber did not approve, it remained for the people to decide between him and it.”
There was a bitter contest for political power between the President and the Senate on the one hand and the Chamber of Deputies on the other. The contest was won by the Chamber of Deputies. When elections were held for the Chamber of Deputies, the Broglie ministry left no stone unturned against the Republicans under Gambetta. Republican officers were removed and reactionaries were appointed in their places. The machinery of the State was used to crush the Republican newspapers. Gambetta declared that after the people had given their verdict by means of a general election, President Macmahon must “either submit or resign.”
He was prosecuted and condemned to three months’ imprisonment and a fine of 2,000 francs. Official candidates were put forward by the Monarchists and were supported by the officers and the ministry in power. The clergymen also helped the Monarchist cause. In spite of all this, the Republicans swept the polls. They secured a majority of over a hundred in the new Chamber of Deputies. President Macmahon “submitted” and appointed a Republican ministry.
When one-third of the members of the Senate were elected in 1878, the Republicans secured a majority in the Senate also. When both the Houses became Republican, the position of President Macmahon became very difficult. The legislature demanded the retirement of certain generals of the army on account of their anti-Republican leanings. Macmahon refused to do so on the ground that the army must be kept out of party politics.
However, he himself resigned on 30 January 1879. Jules Grevy, a Republican of long standing, was elected the new President. Thus, for the first time since 1871, the Republicans came to have their control over the Senate, Chamber of Deputies and the President. As a token of Republican victories, the seat of the French Government was shifted from Versailles to Paris in 1880.
It is true that the Monarchists still continued to have some following but they did not count much on account of their dissensions. The Court of Chambord died in 1883 and the hopes of the Legitimists ended. The Count of Paris did not assert himself and the Bonapartists lost their incentive after the death of Napoleon III and his son.
However, if the danger from the Monarchists was over, the Third Republic in France had to face other difficulties.
(2) After the death of Gambetta in 1882, there was no commanding personality in French politics. The result was that ministerial changes took place very frequently. Politics seemed to be a game of getting offices and not pursuing mature politics of State. There was – lot of discontentment within the country. Many people did not approve of the policy of secularising education. There were others who did not approve of the colonial policy.
The people felt that the parliamentary institutions in France had failed and only a dictator could handle the situation. A scandal was found in the household of President Grevy himself Wilson, his son-in-law, was found to be using his influence for the purpose of trafficking in the bestowal of places in the Legion of Honour. President Grevy defended the action of his son-in-law and was ultimately forced to resign. Undoubtedly, this brought a bad name to the Republican regime.
(3) There was another scandal connected with the Directors of the Panama Canal Company. Some of the ministers and legislators were found guilty of corruption and the opponents of the Republic got another opportunity to attack the same.
(4) Boulanger: When such was the state of affairs in France, General Boulanger appeared on the scene. He was a dashing figure on horseback. He was an attractive speaker and he tried to exploit the public discontent to make himself a hero.
In 1886, he was appointed the minister of war and he was able to win over soldiers by improving their conditions of life in the barracks and by advocating the reduction of the required term of service.
He controlled many newspapers who tried to boost him up. He talked of France having revenge against Germany. He posed as the rescuer of the Republic and demanded a total revision of the constitution. His programme was vague but he aimed at the increase of the powers of the President and the decrease of the powers of the legislature. He advocated the direct election of the President.
For three years, the personality of Boulanger was a storm-centre. Discontented persons of all shades of opinion, whether they were monarchists, imperialists or clericals, flocked to him with a view to use him to overthrow the Republic. Various parties contributed funds towards the elections of
Boulanger and he became a candidate for Parliament from many vacancies. During the five months of 1888, Boulanger was elected a member of the Chamber of Deputies from six constituencies In January 1889; he was elected from Paris itself by a majority of over 80,000.
Boulanger was at the height of his popularity and he could have struck. However, he let the opportunity slip. The Republicans also closed their ranks in the face of a common danger.’ The result was that the ministry summoned Boulanger to appear before the Senate sitting as a High Court of Justice to meet the charge of conspiring against the safety of the State. Instead of facing the charge Boulanger ran away to Belgium and he was convicted in his absence.
In his absence, his followers lost heart. Two years after, he committed suicide. The collapse of Boulanger strengthened the Republic proved its vitality and discredited its opponents. The idea of a revision of the constitution was also discredited.
(5) Dreyfus: The Dreyfus affair also endangered the safety of the Republic for some time Alfred Dreyfus was a Jew and a captain in the French army. He was arrested in October 1894 on a charge of betraying the military secrets of the country to a foreign power. He was tried by a court martial found guilty and sentenced to imprisonment for life. In January 1895, he was publicly degraded in a most dramatic manner in the courtyard of the Military School before a large detachment of the army.
His stripes were torn from his uniform. His sword was broken. In spite of all these humiliations Dreyfus asserted his innocence and shouted “Vive la France!” He was deported to a small, barren and unhealthy island off French Guiana in South Africa called Devil’s Island and kept there in solitary confinement. There was a general feeling that injustice had been done in this case.
Colonel Picquart was subsequently appointed the head of the Intelligence Department and he came to the conclusion that the document on the basis of which Dreyfus had been convicted was a forgery which was committed by Major Esterhazy With a view to maintain the prestige of the army the French Government tried to hush up the matter and Picquart was transferred. Colonel Henry was appointed in his place.
However, there was a lot of agitation all over the country. Men like Emile Zola, Clemenceau and Anatole France took up the cause of Dreyfus which was opposed by the monarchists, the clericals and the army.
The question was not merely the innocence or guilt of Dreyfus, but it involved bigger issues. The enemies of the Republic tried to discredit the Republic insisting on the guilt of Dreyfus.
The supporters of Dreyfus continued their agitation for his re-trial, but it was opposed by the vested interests. However, Colonel Henry admitted that one of the documents on the basis of which Dreyfus had been convicted, was forged by himself. After making that confession, Henry committed suicide in 1898. The confession of Henry strengthened the hands of the supporters of Dreyfus and the government was forced to order a re-trial.
However, in the second trial also, Dreyfus was found guilty. His sentence of imprisonment was reduced to 10 years on account of the extenuating circumstances. President Loubet exercised his power of pardon in favour of Dreyfus and he was set at liberty.
In spite of this, the supporters of Dreyfus were not satisfied. In 1906, he was tried for the third time and on that occasion was declared to be completely innocent. As a result of that verdict, Dreyfus was promoted to a very high rank in the army and he became the symbol of the cause of-Republicanism.
According to Hazen, “The Dreyfus case, originally simply involving the fate of an alleged traitor had soon acquired a far greater significance. Party and personal ambitions and interests sought to use it for purposes of their own and thus the question of legal right and wrong was woefully distorted and obscured. Those who hated the Jews used it to inflame people against that race, as Dreyfus was a Jew.
The clericals joined them. Monarchists seized the occasion to declare that the Republic was an egregious failure breeding treason, and ought to be abolished. On the other hand there rallied to the defence of Dreyfus those who believed in his innocence, those who denounced the hatred of a race as a relic of barbarism, those who believed that the military should be subordinate to the civil authority and should not regard itself as above the law as these army officers were doing, those who believed that the whole episode was merely a hidden and dangerous attack upon the Republic, and all who believed that the clergy should keep out of politics.
“The chief result of this memorable struggle in the domain of politics was to unite more closely Republicans of every shade in a common programme, to make them resolve to reduce the political importance of the army and of the Church. The former was easily done by removal of monarchist officers. The attempt to solve the latter much more subtle and elusive problem led to the next great struggle in the recent history of France, the struggle with the Church.”
According to Prof. Chapman, “As everyone knows who reads the history of France between 1870 and 1914; the Dreyfus case lies in his way, a vast and distracting maze, una selva oscura. It cannot be avoided. Unhappily much legend is attached to the Dreyfus affair. To accept the conventional reading of a clerico-military conspiracy is to swallow the propaganda of the Dreyfusards. No conspiracy existed in military circles, none in clerical. The arrest of Deroulede and his allies in August 1899 was no more than the spectacular method of a shaky and nervous government of rallying opinion to its side. This consideration led me back to a re-examination of the evidence from the beginning. It soon became apparent that much more is to be said for the War Office than has generally been admitted that anti-Semitism played little, perhaps no part in the arrest of the unhappy victim or in his trial, that the accusations against the secular Church and, save the Assumptionists against the religious Orders have the flimsiest foundations. In short, the conventional story is overlaid with propaganda put out by partisans on the both sides.”
It is to be observed that after the defeat of the anti-Dreyfusards, the position of the Third Republic became stabilized and it did not meet any danger from any other quarter.
6. Anti-church Policy (Ultramontanism):
The anti-church policy of the Third Republic was due to many causes. The clericals had identified themselves with the royalist cause. When there was a struggle between the Monarchists and the Republicans, the Clericals joined hands with the Monarchists. Even on the occasion of the Dreyfus affair, the Clericals supported the anti-Dreyfusards.
They also supported Boulanger, Gambetta, the popular leader of France, had pointed out the danger to the Third Republic from the church in these words: “Clericalism, there is the enemy.” According to Combes, “Clericalism is, in fact, to be found at the bottom of every agitation and every intrigue from which Republican France has suffered during the last thirty-five years.”
French politicians wanted to take away the control of the church over the educational system of the country. It was intended to inoculate with Republicanism every French boy and girl. Ferry, the French Minister of Public Instruction, passed many laws by which an attempt was made to remove the Catholic influence from education. Those laws prescribed compulsory attendance at some school for all children. Parents could still send their children to free schools run by the church, but if they did so, they had to support their schools out of their own funds.
However, a complete system of public or national schools was established which was finalised and directed by the Republican Government. No religious instruction was given in those schools and only those laymen could teach in those schools who were accepted by the government. Gambetta’s view was that the Prussian school master had won the last war and the French school master must win the next. Many Catholic clergymen condemned the public schools as Godless and atheistical.
The government also hit back and ordered the dissolution of the Society of Jesus and its expulsion from France. All laws against the religious congregations of monks and nuns were revived. The government ordered the dissolution of those congregations which were not authorised by itself. Their members were also forbidden to run schools. It was also provided that all marriages were to be performed by civil ministries in order to give them validity. Another law empowered the civil courts to grant divorces and cancel marriages. The Catholics protested but submitted.
In October 1900, Premier Waldeck-Rousseau made a speech at Toulouse which resounded throughout France and foreshadowed a policy of great importance. According to him, the real danger confronting France arose from the growing power of the religious orders of monks and nuns. “In this country whose moral unity has for centuries constituted its strength and greatness, two classes of young people are growing up ignorant of each other until the day when they meet, so unlike as the risk not comprehending one another. Such a fact is explained only by the existence of a power which is no longer even occult, and by the constitution in the state of rival power.”
What he intended to say was that the youth of France was divided into two classes whose outlook upon life, whose mental processes, and whose opinions concerning politics and morals were so different from one another that the moral unity of the nation was destroyed.
That was partly due to the astonishing and dangerous growth of religious orders of congregations whose influence was highly harmful. The orders were the rivals of the State. They had grown in wealth and numbers.
Between 1877 and 1900, the number of nuns increased from 14,000 to 75,000 in unauthorised orders. The number of the monks was in the neighbourhood of 190,000. Their property was valued at about 50 million francs. The same property was worth more than a billion francs in 1900. The accumulation of wealth in the hands of the church was a source of great danger. There was opposition to teaching and preaching by the church. The church was declared the enemy of liberty.
In 1901, the Law of Associations was passed by which no religious order was to be allowed to exist in France without a definite authorisation by Parliament. The orders were to submit themselves to continuous regulation by the State. Although there were loud protests against the law, the same was vigorously enforced.
The view of Combes was that “Clericalism is in fact to be found at the bottom of every agitation and every intrigue from which republican France has suffered during the last 35 years.” Many refused to ask for authorisation from Parliament and there were others which were refused the authorisation even when they asked for the same. Thousands of monks and nuns were forced to leave their institutions and the latter had to be closed. Many of them left France and got shelter in Spain, Belgium, Great Britain and the U.S.A. Combes boasted that he not only exiled and silenced the critics of the Republic but also deprived the church schools of their best teachers.
Another law was passed in 1904 by which all teaching by religious orders, even by those authorised, was to cease within 10 years. The State was to have a monopoly of education of the young and consequently was to be in a position to teach them the principles of republicanism and liberalism. About 500 teaching, preaching and commercial orders were suppressed. Although Catholics condemned the law as the very negation of liberty, the same remained on the statute book.
The Republicans were not contented with this and were determined to go ahead with their programme against the church. For about a century, the relations between the church and the State in France were regulated by the Concordat of 1801. The Bishops and Archbishops were appointed by the State with the consent of the Pope. The Bishops appointed the priests with the consent of the State.
The State paid the salaries of the priests and the bishops. The church recognised the confiscation of its property by the State. There were many Frenchmen who wanted to put an end to the Concordat of 1801. Their view was that religion was a private affair and the State had nothing to do with the same.
The State had no right to tax people for the support of a church in which many had no belief or interest. It had no right to favour one denomination over another or over all others. It must be neutral towards all creeds and churches. Matters were precipitated when President Loubet of France paid an official visit to the King of Italy at Rome in April 1904.
It was well known that such a visit was bound to offend the Pope who since 1870 had refused to recognise the King of Italy and had requested the Catholic sovereigns not to visit him. Pope Pius X protested to the Catholic powers of Europe against what he called “a grave offence to the Sovereign Pontiff.” Jaures demanded “reprisals” for what he called foreign interference in the political affairs of France.
The result was that Delcasse, the French Foreign Minister, recalled the French ambassador to the Vatican. Since June 1903, a preliminary committee had been studying the problem and trying to draft the measure which was intended to separate the church from the State. The law was finally passed on 9 December 1905. It abrogated the Concordat of 1801.
The State was not to pay in future the salaries of the clergymen and was also to have no hand in their appointment. Clergymen who had served for many years, were to be given pensions. Young clergymen were to be given some compensation. The Church property which had been vested in the nation since 1789 was still to be at the free disposal of Roman Catholic Church.
However, the same was to be managed by Associations of Worship which were to vary in size according to the population of the community. Provision was made to prevent associations from amassing more than a given amount of wealth by legacies, gifts or otherwise.
The law was not universally condemned by the Catholics of France. There were many who believed that the church should adapt itself to the new circumstances. 74 Bishops decided to give it a trial if certain alterations were made in the character of the Associations of Worship.
However, a crisis was precipitated by the Pope who condemned the law of 1905 unreservedly. He declared that the fundamental principle of the separation of church and State was “an absolutely false thesis, a very pernicious error.
” He denounced the associations of worship as giving administrative control not “to the divinely instituted hierarchy, but to an association of laymen.” That was a violation of the principles on which the church was based. The decision of the Pope was final and decisive for all Catholics and there was no scope for any compromise.
There was the danger of all the Catholic churches in France being closed down and the government was not prepared to go to that extent. Briand decided to apply the law of 1881 which regulated the holding of public meetings.
Although that law was concerned with secular meetings, the same was applied to religious meetings. It was announced that priests might make use of the churches after merely filing the usual application which covered the whole year. That compromise was also rejected by the Pope.
Another law was enforced in January 1907. By that law, most of the privileges guaranteed to the Roman Catholic Church by the law of 1905 were abrogated. As regards public worship in the churches, their use was to be gratuitous and regulated by contracts between the priests and prefects or mayors. Those contracts were to safeguard the civil ownership of the buildings, but worship was to go on in them as before.
According to Prof Seignobos, “By this separation of church and State, France broke with the European tradition of Concordats by which the State officially recognised its religion; she adopted the American system which leaves the churches to be organised by the private initiative. This was a revolution in the ecclesiastical regime of France.”
7. Labour Legislation in France:
Some important labour legislation was enacted in France during the 1890’s. The “great Act” of 1892 regulated the employment of women and forbade the employment of children under 13 years of age. It also laid down that workers were not to be made to work for more than 10 hours a day. There was to be a holiday once a week, preferably on Sundays.
The interests of the minors were also safeguarded. Another Act of the same year provided for a machinery for voluntary arbitration in industrial disputes between employers and employees. Another Act was passed in 1893 which enabled the government to supervise the hygienic conditions in the factories.
The government was also to see that measures were adopted for the safety of the workers in the industrial establishments. Another Act of the same year ensured free medical attendance for all workers and their families. An Act of 1898 laid down that employers were to pay compensation for personal injuries sustained by the employees.
8. Colonial Policy of Third Party:
France had already made some progress in the field of colonial development in the time of Louis Philippe and Napoleon III. During the regime of Jules Ferry, a vigorous colonial policy was pursued. In 1881, a protectorate was established over Tunis. Italy protested but had ultimately to keep quiet.
In the tune of Napoleon III, France had occupied Cambodia and annexed Cochin-China. Under Ferry, Tonkin was conquered and a protectorate was established over Annam Ferry also laid the foundations of French Congo and sent an expedition to Madagascar.
The work started by Ferry was continued by his successors. The result was that Madagascar was annexed in 1896 and Morocco was recognised as within the French sphere of influence in 1904. France also made acquisitions in Senegal, Guinea, Dahomey, Ivory Coast and the region of the Niger.
It is true that Germany protested against French penetration into Morocco and precipitated the crises of 1905-6 1908 and 1911, but Morocco was practically made a part of the French Empire by 1912 Germany was reconciled by the grant of some compensation to her elsewhere. Thus, France came to have a colonial Empire which was second in the world only to that of Great Britain.
9. Foreign Policy of Third Policy:
From 1871 to 1890, France was diplomatically isolated. That was due to the deliberate policy of Bismarck who left no stone unturned to keep France isolated. Bismarck created the Three Emperors’ League which continued to exist up to 1878. In 1879 he entered into an alliance with Austria-Hungary. By the entry of Italy in 1882, the same was transformed into the Triple Alliance He revived the Three Emperors’ League in 1881 and the same continued up to 1887.
In 1887 he entered into the Reinsurance treaty with Russia and the same continued up to 1890 France could not have an alliance with England as there was going on a lot of colonial rivalry between the two countries. The relations were so much strained that on the occasion of the Fashoda incident of 1898 there was the possibility of a war between the two countries. Although Bismarck had succeeded in keeping Russia on his own side up to 1890, things changed after his resignation.
The result was that France and Russia entered into a military alliance in 1893.The Dual Alliance continued up to 1914 although its importance became negligible during the Russo-Japanese War and the years that followed it. The Dual Alliance of 1893 ended the diplomatic isolation of France and enabled her to face the future with confidence and hope. There was no major change in foreign affairs till 1898 when Delcasse became the Foreign Minister of France. On account of the importance of his achievements It IS desirable to refer to his work at some length.
10. Delcasse (1898-1905):
The foreign policy of Delcasse is associated with the reconciliation of France with England and Italy When he entered the Quai D’ Orsay in June 1898, there was bitterness between France and England and there was going on a great colonial competition between the two countries. When he left the Foreign Office in 1905, England and Italy were friends of France. That was due to the industry, patience and devotion of Delcasse.
11. Reconciliation with England:
Captain Marchand had been sent by the French Government to forestall the English in the so-called Egyptian Sudan and thereby add to the French power Even a change of government in France did not result in any change in the policy. The result was that Marchand reached Fashoda and hoisted the French flag. Kitchener met Marchand and asked him to retire from Fashoda as that was within the jurisdiction of Egypt. There was a lot of argument but all that was of no avail. Ultimately, the English flag was hoisted a few hundred yards away and Marchand was allowed to send a report to his government and get instructions from the same.
It is stated that when Delcasse became the Foreign Minister of France, he took steps in the direction of reconciliation of England. When Kitchener won the battle of Omdurman and entered Khartum, Delcasse offered his sincere congratulations on his victory “despite the differences about Egypt of the two governments.” Delcasse also expressed his desire to settle all cases of differences between the two countries by discussion.
However, he was informed by the British Government that there was nothing which could be discussed. Even on the day before the meeting of Kitchener and Marchand, an important interview took place between Delcasse and the British ambassador in Paris During the interview, Delcasse told the British ambassador that the French Government had never recognised the British sphere of influence in the Upper Nile and as a matter of fact had protested against it.
The Bahr-Ghazel has long been outside the influence of Egypt and France had as much a right at Fashoda as the English had at Khartum. The British ambassador told Delcasse that his government was not prepared to compromise and consequently the situation seemed to be serious. On another occasion, Delcasse told the British ambassador that he was prepared to discuss the question in the most conciliatory spirit, but he could not evacuate Fashoda without discussion or conditions.
The stand taken by the French Government created a storm of opposition and resentment in England where the people demanded that France must be taught a lesson and England must not submit. Lord Rosebury announced that the British Government was not prepared to sacrifice anything and was prepared to fight out.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer also spoke in a similar tone. Chamberlain announced the calling of the reserves. A cartoon in the Punch indicated the impatience of the man in the street in England “What will you give me if I go away?” asked a Frenchman. “I will give you something if you don’t”, replied John Bull.
The British Government demanded an unconditional evacuation of Fashoda and Dr. Gooch IS of the opinion that the British Government got it done by means of a threat of war. The French left Fashoda and the episode ended peacefully. The sagacity and moderation of Delcasse saved the situation.
If Delcasse had been as violent as people on the other side of the Channel were, here would have been trouble. Such “a conflict would have involved sacrifices disproportionate to the object”. France had already one enemy in Germany and she could not afford to have another.
To quarrel with Lat Britain was to play into the hands of Germany and thereby destroy all chances of recovering Alsace and Lorraine. The French fleet was weak and Great Britain could have taken Possession of the whole of the colonial empire of France. It was this conviction that forced Delcasse to defy those Frenchmen who stood for a war with Great Britain.
According to Taylor, “Fashoda and its aftermath was for the French a crisis in political psychology for the British not even that. They carried the day with the normal peace-time strength; the extra cost of Fashoda to the British admiralty was £13,600. The economy was, of course, illusory. The true ‘battle for Egypt’ had been fought in 1798, and the French never meant to renew. It Fashoda was a triumph for ‘splendid isolation.’ The British had become indifferent to the continent of Europe and the Balance of Power (or so they thought); therefore, they could build an invincible navy and dominate the Mediterranean. Fashoda, moreover, made ‘splendid isolation’ more secure.
The British the diplomatic support of other Powers in the Egyptian question, once they put it on a military basis and with their troops close to the Suez canal they worried less than ever about a Russian occupation of a Constantinople. At any time after 1898 the British could say of the opening of the Straits what the Committee of Imperial Defence said in 1903 ‘it would not fundamentally alter the present strategic position in the Mediterranean.’ Fashoda finished off what remained of the Mediterranean entente.
Great Britain needed neither Italy nor Austria-Hungary. Italy, deprived of British protection had to seek reconciliation with France. Austria-Hungary enjoyed an illusory security so long as Russian attention was concentrated on the Far East, once Russia turned back to the Balkans, Germany could no longer find a third party on whom to shoulder off the defence of Austria-Hungary, and a Russo- German conflict became well-nigh inevitable.
After the retirement of Marchand from Fashoda, negotiations started between the two countries and ultimately a settlement was made in 1899 regarding the respective spheres of France and England By this. Great Britain recognised the right of France to expand from West Africa towards the Sahara and the interior. The settlement was the work of Delcasse and Salisbury who showed a lot of patience at the time of the crisis.’
When the crisis was over, Delcasse suggested through the French ambassador in London to settle the other outstanding points of dispute between the two countries. Lord Salisbury did not show any enthusiasm and said that they must wait and that waiting took four years (1899-1903).
According to Dr. Gooch, the idea of a rapprochement between England and France was born on the day of Delcasse’s appointment as Minister for Foreign Affairs in June 1898. Though originally an Anglophobe, he informed the first visitor at the Quai D’ Orsay of his intention to establish cordial relations with England. The decision to evacuate Fashoda cleared the ground. However the Boer War created bitterness between the two countries on account of the anti-British attitude of the French newspapers and the public.
In spite of the difficulties, the pioneers of reconciliation did not give up hope. In 1900, the British Chamber of Commerce expressed its desire to hold its meeting at Paris and Delcasse approved of the same. The English attended the meeting in large numbers In 1903 King Edward visited France and he was welcomed by the French. The same year, Delcasse and President Loubet met of their respective claims.
It was decided that while England was made a return visit to London. It was in this atmosphere of trust and friendship that negotiations started between the two countries of settlement of their respective claims. It was decided that while England was to have a free hand in Egypt, France was to have the same in Morocco. Likewise, the question of Newfoundland Fisheries was amicably settled. France gave up the right to the shores and she was given concessions in West Africa. The questions of Siam, Madagascar and the New Hebrides were also settled.
Both Lord Lansdowne and Delcasse were satisfied with the friendly settlement of the outstanding disputes between the two countries. Answering his critics, Delcasse maintained that in Newfoundland France had abandoned privileges which were difficult to maintain and in no way necessary’ while the essential right of fishing in territorial waters was preserved and the right of purchasing bait and drying nets was also not denied.
In West Africa, the British concessions were of considerable importance. The Niger-Chad frontier was improved. To quote Delcasse, “Under our influence, Morocco would be a source of strength for our North African empire. If subject to a foreign Power, our North African possessions would be permanently menaced and paralysed.” There was not much of sacrifice in the case of Egypt which had already been lost in 1882.
Italy:
While Delcasse was busy in improving relations with Britain, he was also trying to conciliate Italy. In 1900, he secured the consent of Italy to the French exploitation of Morocco by telling Italy that she could develop her interests in Tripoli. In 1901, an Italian squadron visited Toulon In 1902 the Italian Government assured the French Government that the Triple Alliance was not aimed at France and she gave a guarantee that she would not fight against France. In 1904, President Loubet visited Rome and the two countries were brought together.
Delcasse also took steps to settle things with Spain regarding Morocco. A Franco-Spanish treaty was signed on 6 October 1904 by which Spain formally adhered to the Anglo-French Convention of April 1904 and thereby acknowledged the predominant interest of France in Morocco. She also accepted from France and England a guarantee of Moroccan independence.
12. Morocco:
Having settled with Italy and Spain the question of Morocco, Delcasse sent a mission in December 1904 to the capital of Morocco. Morocco was to be developed under the auspices of France and the French were to help in the training of police, building of roads and telegraphs and the founding of a State Bank. The Sultan of Morocco accepted the suggestions of the French Government Everything seemed to be progressing smoothly when all of a sudden a check came from Germany.
Formerly, the attitude of the German Government was that she had only commercial interests in Morocco, but now the German Government changed its mind. William II went to Tangier and made a declaration that the German Government would not allow the subjection of the Sultan of Morocco of any Power. He also declared that the German Government was determined to defend the independence of the Sultan at all costs. Naturally, those declarations were presented in France.
The German regarded Delcasse as their enemy No. 1 and no wonder they wanted him to go. The German Government demanded that a conference of the powers concerned should be summoned to discuss the question of Morocco. Delcasse was not prepared to submit to this German demand. He felt that Germany was merely trying to vilify France by making unreasonable demands.
He was supported by the President and Prime Minister of France. On the other hand, the German Government insisted that Delcasse must be dismissed and a conference must be called. The German press clamoured that it was not France which wanted to fight against Germany but it was the personal enmity of Delcasse which was responsible for the conflict.
There were rumours of an ultimatum being given by Germany to France and the French feared that their army was not ready. Delcasse stated that Britain had made an offer of 100,000 men to support France. However, Dr. Gooch points out that the so-called “British Offer” existed only in the imagination of Delcasse. As a matter of fact the British Government had given no such guarantee.
The British Government had merely given a warning that in case any unfriendly act was done. Great Britain was not to remain indifferent. Such a warning against aggression was different from a solemn undertaking to help France. Probably Delcasse’s mistaken interpretation of the British official attitude was due to the statements of certain highly-placed Englishmen who expressed their individual convictions.
The contention of the French Prime Minister was that even if the so-called British offer was accepted, that would mean war with Germany. At that stage, Bulow, the German Chancellor, informed the French Government that he was not going to have any dealings with Delcasse. It was this ultimatum which was responsible for the resignation of Delcasse and the French acceptance of a conference to deal with the question of Morocco.
During this period, one factor played a very important part. France used to depend upon her friendship with Russia on account of the Franco-Russian alliance. However, in 1905, Russia was very weak on account of her reverses in the Russo-Japanese War. Moreover, William II was making special efforts to win over Russia. So in the Russo-Japanese War, the Germans helped the Russians as much as they could.
In 1905 was signed the Bjorko Pact by William II and Nicholas II. France submitted to the German demand for a conference because she could not trust her Russian ally and she was also not sure of any military help from England. The British Government also advised the French Government to accept the idea of a conference on Morocco.
However, it cannot be denied that the French surrender cost her the services of a brilliant and selfless statesman who had done so much to enhance her prestige and strengthen her position in Europe. Lord Lansdowne wrote thus to a friend. “The fall of Delcasse is disgusting and has sent the Entente down a number of points in the market.” It was the most humiliating incident that had occurred in France for many years. In spite of his fall, with the exception of Austria, all Powers voted against Germany in the Algeciras Conference in 1906. “Algeciras was a German defeat and Delcasse had contributed not a little to it.
Even after retirement from the foreign office in 1905, Delcasse remained a prominent figure in French politics for a long time. He belonged to no party but was welcome because of his friends. When he became the Minister of the French Marine, he followed a policy of concentrating the French Fleet in the Mediterranean.
In 1914, he was sent as French ambassador to Russia. With his pro-Russian views, he was the most suitable person for bringing the two countries nearer each other. It is well-known that he had played an important part in 1904 on the occasion of the Dogger Mank incident. Without him, there might have been a clash between England and Russia.
The question has been asked as to how far Delcasse was responsible for the Entente Cordiale of 1904. It is true that it was the British Government which intimated in 1904 to the French Government that Edward VII would be happy to visit Paris on his way back from the Mediterranean, and the French Government responded favourably. It was the visit of the King and the welcome that was given to him that prepared the way.
The same year Delcasse and President Loubet visited London. It was on that occasion that negotiations started between the two countries. It is maintained that it was Delcasse’s sagacity and public spirit which led him to “grasp the hand which the British Government held out to him.” It is true that in 1903, the British Government took the initiative, but Delcasse had already taken the initiative in that direction in 1899 after the settlement of the Fashoda incident.
However Lord Salisbury had replied thus to Cambon. “I have the greatest confidence in M. Delcasse and also in your present government. But in a few months time they will probably be overthrown and their successors will do exactly the contrary. No, we must wait a bit.”
It is clear that while the British Government rejected Delcasse’s offer in 1899, the latter accepted the British offer in 1903 although he could have rejected likewise. The change in the British attitude was due to the fact that England had tried to win over Germany and had failed. After entering into an alliance with Japan in 1902 France was approached by the British Government with a similar objective.
It is stated that Lord Lansdowne was shocked to find in March 1904 that Delcasse had not communicated to the French Cabinet the negotiations that were going on between the two countries That was due to the fact Delcasse was not sure of their effect on the colleagues of his Cabinet.
When the negotiations reached the final stage, he communicated the same to the Cabinet. It shows that he worked secretly at his object till he became sure of his success. In spite of the many ministerial changes in France from 1898 to 1905, Delcasse managed to remain in the foreign office and consistently followed a policy of winning over England and Italy.
The Germans regarded Delcasse as their arch-enemy because it was contended that he aimed at the encirclement of Germany However, there does not seem to be any truth in the accusation. The fact IS that Delcasse was a great patriot and he wanted to strengthen the position of his country by winning over England and Italy to her side. It was only in that way that France could hold her own against Germany. We may conclude with the following remarks of an eminent writer: “In spite of his limitations, he remains by general consent, the outstanding figure of the Third Republic in the field of foreign affairs.”
12. Morocco Crisis of 1905:
It was on three occasions that the question of Morocco came to the front and there was every likelihood of a war between Germany and France. On all these three occasions England backed France and consequently Germany had to give way.
Reference has already been made to the first Morocco crisis of 1905-6. It has already been pointed out that after the Entente Cordiale of 1904, Delcasse sent a French mission to Morocco with a view to establish French control over the country. Although outwardly the object was merely to help the Sultan of Morocco to develop his country and improve his administration, the ultimate effect would have been the establishment of French control over the country.
Although on previous occasions Germany had stated that she had no interest in Morocco, a change was visible in her attitude The German Emperor went to Tangier and declared that Germany would not allow the establishment of French control over Morocco. Germany also demanded the dismissal of Delcasse and the summoning of a conference to deal with the question of Morocco. Delcasse was forced to resign in 1905 and the Algeciras Conference was held in 1906. Excepting Austria-Hungary, all other Powers including Italy voted with France and against Germany.
The result was that Germany came out of the Conference empty-handed. It was recognised that while Germany had economic interests, France had political as well as economic interests. According to Dr. Gooch, the Conference of Algeciras did not improve the relations between Germany and France or the internal condition of Morocco. The kernel of the treaty was that power was given to France and Spain to provide police for 8 ports order a Swiss Inspector but recruiting and instruction proceeded very slowly and was never fully carried out Prince Bulow considered the results of the Algeciras Conference to be satisfactory although Germany did not get all that she desired.
To quote Bulow, “We succeeded in preserving the sovereignty of the Sultan and in securing international control of the police organisation and the Morocco National Bank, thus ensuring the open door in Morocco for German economic interests as well as for those of all other countries….The decisions of the Algeciras Conference bolted the door against the attempts of France to compass the ‘Unification’ of Morocco. They also proved a bell we could ring at any time, should France show any similar tendencies again.” However, according to impartial observers, the Algeciras Conference was a diplomatic rebuff for Germany.
The Conference was held with the definite object of breaking the Entente between England and France. The actual result of the Conference was not the breaking but the strengthening of the Entente. Bulow himself admitted this fact in these words. “We have no thought of attempting to separate France and England. We have absolutely no idea of attempting to disturb the friendship of the Western Powers. Cordial relations between Germany and England are in perfect consonance with Entente, if the latter combination follows pacific purposes.”
13. Morocco and Casablanca Case (1908):
The second Morocco crisis of 1908 was related to the Casablanca incident. On 25 September 1908, the German Consul at Casablanca tried to assist the deserters from the French Foreign Legions to escape. However, the deserters were captured and the German secretary and the soldiers, who were escorting them, were roughly handled by French soldiers.
The German Consul was blamed by the French authorities for the violation of international law by helping the deserters. On the other hand, the French authorities were blamed by Germany for having violated the rules of international law with regard to the privileges of the Consuls. There was a lot of excitement both in Germany and France. However, matters were not precipitated and both the countries agreed to submit the dispute to arbitration.
The verdict of the arbitrators was that both sides were partly in the wrong. Both Powers were happy at the peaceful disposal of the dispute. The other European Powers were also happy as they were busy with the Turkish Revolution of 1908 and the Bosnian crisis of 1908-9. As there was the possibility of trouble in the Balkans, much importance was not attached to Morocco. Germany realised that it was not possible to check French control in Morocco without a war.
There were negotiations between Germany and France with regard to Morocco and the result was the Franco-German Agreement of February 1909. Germany was promised equality of economic opportunity in Morocco and she recognised the special interests of France and promised not to interfere with them.
Certain factors expedited the negotiations between the two countries. One of them was the possibility of a conflict between Austria and Serbia on the question of Bosnia and the other was the anxiety of Bulow to come to a settlement with England with regard to the naval programmes of the two countries. Bulow felt that negotiations with Germany could succeed only if the relations between France and Germany were not strained.
The anxiety of England with regard to Morocco could be removed only if Germany and France shook hands on the question of Morocco. King Edward VII was to visit Berlin and Bulow decided to complete the negotiations before the arrival of Edward VII so that the credit of the success may not be given to the King. The Agreement of 1909 was enthusiastically supported in the French Press and Bulow was congratulated upon it. One important result was the establishment and maintenance of cordial relations between France and Germany for two years (1909-11).
13. Morocco and Agadir Crisis (1911):
The Franco-German Agreement of 1909 established friendly relations between the two countries and for some time no difficulty arose with regard to Morocco. However, disorders in that country gave the French a pretext for a steady extension of their police and military control. The Sultan was forced by an ultimatum to accept a loan which brought him under the complete control of France.
It was becoming clear that under the changed circumstances the independence of the Sultan could not be maintained and equal opportunities in the economic field could not be guaranteed to the Germans. The chieftains of Morocco did not like the French methods of control and consequently there was a revolt in Fez, the capital of Morocco.
It was declared that lives of Europeans were in danger. Captain Marchand was murdered in Morocco and the French Government decided to send troops to Fez to save the lives of Europeans. It was declared that troops would be withdrawn as soon as order was restored in Fez.
Kiderlen, the German Foreign Minister, neither gave his approval nor put in any formal protest. His views on Morocco have been summarised in these words. “Three years have shown that the independence of Morocco, as contemplated in Algeciras Act, cannot be maintained in the face of native rebellion and imperialistic pressure from France and Spain. Sooner or later Morocco will inevitably be absorbed by these two neighbours. It is unlikely that a walled city like Fez can be captured by the natives and the revolt seems to be on the ebb. But the French fear for its safety and are preparing to send an expedition.
This they have a right to do and one must await the development of events. But if they march to Fez it is hardly likely that they will withdraw; even if French public opinion approved withdrawal, it would be regarded by the natives as a sign of weakness.
This would lead to new uprisings and new French military expeditions. The course of events shows that the provisions of the Act of Algeciras cannot be carried out. A Sultan who can only assert his authority with the aid of French bayonets cannot maintain the independence which was the purpose of the Algeciras Act. Germany must recognize these facts and readjust her policy in accordance with them. After the French have been in Fez awhile, we shall ask in a friendly way when they expect to withdraw.
When they say that they cannot withdraw we shall say that we understand this perfectly, but we can no longer regard the Sultan as a sovereign independent ruler as provided by the Act of Algeciras; and since this is a dead letter, the Signatory Powers regain their freedom of action.
It will do no good to protest against the French absorption of Morocco. We must therefore secure an object which will make the French ready to give us Compensations. Just as the French protect their subjects in Fez, we can do the same for ours at Magador and Agadir by peacefully stationing ships there. We can then await developments and see if the French will offer us suitable compensation. If we get these, it will make up for past failures and have a good effect on the coming elections to the Reichstag.”
The French Government informed the German Government that it was ready to negotiate on the question of compensation. Kiderlen desired to have the whole of French Congo. Cambon, the French Ambassador in Berlin, felt that no French Government could afford to give the whole of the Congo.
On 1 July 1911, the German gun-boat called the Panther entered the harbour of Agadir. Germany declared that she had sent the German gun-boat to protect the lives and property of the Germans in South Morocco. The warship was to be withdrawn as soon as order was restored in Morocco. It is pointed out that the real object of the Panther was to extort more concessions from France.
During all this interval, negotiations were continuing between Germany and France for a settlement of the question of compensation. The final impression of Kiderlen was that no satisfactory concession could be got from France without a war. However, the Kaiser was opposed to a war with France on the question of Morocco and gave directions to that effect to Kiderlen. The latter was prepared to resign but was persuaded to continue the negotiations with France.
It was at this stage that Great Britain intervened. Sir Edward Grey warned Germany on 4 July 1911 that “a new situation has been created by the despatch of a German ship to Agadir; future developments might affect British interests more directly than they had hitherto been affecting and, therefore, we could not recognise any new arrangement which was to come without us.” Grey was prepared to accept a Franco-German settlement based on an exchange of French Congo territory for German African possessions provided Germany gave tip all claims to Morocco.
On 21 July 1911, Lloyd George, Chancellor of the Exchequer, made the following declaration in his famous Mansion House speech. “But I am also bound to say this that I believe it is essential in the highest interests, not merely of this country, but of the world, that Britain should at all hazards maintain her prestige amongst the Great Powers of the world. Her potent influence has many times been in the past, and may yet be in the future, invaluable to the cause of human liberty.
It has more than once in the past redeemed continental nations, who are sometimes too apt to forget that service from overwhelming disaster, and even from national extinction. It would make great sacrifices to preserve peace. I conceive that nothing would justify a disturbance of international goodwill exceed questions of the gravest national moment. But if a situation were to be forced upon us in which peace could only be preserved by the surrender of the great and beneficent position Britain has won by centuries of heroism and achievement, by allowing Britain to be treated where her interests were vitally affected, as if she were of no account in the comity of nations, then I say emphatically that peace at that price would be a humiliation intolerable for a great country like ours to endure.”
This speech had the desired result. There was a lot of indignation in Germany. It was interpreted as a threat to interfere in the Franco-German negotiations and it was felt that England had no business to do so. There was every possibility of a war and it was felt that the British Government was playing dangerously with fire. However, the actual result of the speech was that Germany informed England that she had no desire to establish herself on the Atlantic coast of Morocco.
Germany also moderated her demands on France. After four months of negotiations, an agreement was signed in November 1911. According to that agreement, Germany agreed to the establishment of a French protectorate over Morocco. France gave 100,000 square miles of French Congo to Germany.
Although the Morocco crisis was over, the relations between England and Germany became all the more strained. England began to suspect the war-like inclinations of Germany. According to Grey, “The Agadir Crisis was intended to end either in the diplomatic humiliation of France or in war.”
Again, “The militarists in Germany were bitterly disappointed over Agadir, and when the next crisis came we found them with the reins in their hands.” Grey’s feelings are clear from his following remarks to the Russian Ambassador.
“In the event of a war between Germany and France, England would have to participate. If this war should involve Russia, Austria would be dragged in too, for, although she has not the slightest desire to interfere in this matter, she will be compelled by force of circumstances to do so. There is no doubt that in such an event, the situation in Albania will become aggravated. Consequently, it would no longer be a duel between France and Germany—it would be a general war.”
According to Prince Bulow, “Like a damp squib, it started then amused the world, and ended by making us look ridiculous. After the leap of the Panther on Agadir, there was a fanfare which on Lloyd George’s speech, died in the most inglorious charade.” The Agadir Crisis tightened the bond between England and France. France was grateful to England for the Mansion House speech which helped to end the dispute. A day before the Mansion House speech, a conference took place between the French and English military staffs with a view “to determine the new conditions for the participation of English army in the operations of the French Armies in the North-East in case of war with Germany.” Evidently, the crisis brought France and England nearer each other. Another effect of the Agadir Crisis was that Italy decided to capture Tripoli. This action of Italy so much weakened Turkey that the Balkan League was formed to finish the Turkish Empire in Europe. That led to the Balkan Wars of 1912-13 which ultimately led to the World War of 1914.
According to Grant and Temperley, “Agadir was a crisis infinitely more serious than Algeciras and undoubtedly more critical than the Bosnian one. The Triple Entente had been defeated over Bosnia and Russia humiliated. But their defeat and humiliation were perhaps less public and anyhow less recent than that of the Triple Alliance, and of Germany in particular, at Agadir. This time England had appeared ‘in shining armour’ at a grave moment to support her friend. An able publicist put his finger on the gravity of the new situation at once. He said that the bond of the Triple Entente is less close than that of the Triple Alliance, but for practical purposes Europe is divided by these two great combinations and the tenseness of the situation makes crises inevitably recur. Russia and the Entente accepted defeat without war in the crisis of 1909.
Germany accepted defeat without war in that of 1911, neither would accept defeat without war in any future crisis. Both groups understood the danger, and both began to prepare. England had already been organising an expeditionary force of six divisions, new arrangements were made with the Admiralty to transport it rapidly overseas at need, i.e., to co-operate with France. Preparations of all kinds low press-censorship, for war legislation and the like were made.
If a peace-loving country and government faced reality and made preparations like these, it is not surprising that military and naval activity developed elsewhere in a less liberal atmosphere. And the tensity of the situation was increased by military re-organisation everywhere and particularly by the designing and development of ‘Russian strategic railways and of German strategic canals.”